3 ms·

No it isn't. We already have an economically efficient food source. It's called plants. And if we stopped wasting 25kg of edible produce (like soy) to make 1kg

No it isn't. We already have an economically efficient food source. It's called plants. And if we stopped wasting 25kg of edible produce (like soy) to make 1kg of beef, and cared more about effective distribution and solving logistic problems than pleasing the stock market, we could easily feed the the worlds population without dooming our planet. Insects are a viable addition, as they are capable of converting otherwise inedible plant material into material fit for human consumption. But they are not required.

cheese_goddess 5y ago
So, I have a question, I don't know if you can answer it, but in conversations like this one people always bring up beef. My question is: why? Most of the meat production globally is pork and chicken. In 2018, beef production was about 20% of all meat production while pork and chicken combined was about 70%: https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#meat-production-by-animal https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#meat-production-b... Most of the meat people eat (not just production) is also pork and chicken again with about 20% beef and 70% pork and chicken: https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#what-types-of-meat-do-people-eat https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#what-types-of-mea... So why the focus on beef? Can you explain? Btw, note that I don't agree (or disagree) with the article about insects being any kind of solution to anything so my question has nothing to do with the article.
- usrbinbash 5y ago
  > So why the focus on beef? Can you explain? To make a stronger argument. Beef production is by far the most inefficient method of converting resources (feed, water, land, energy) into meat, so its the one commonly used when argueing about resource requirements. One could say it's a rethorical tactic. Taking water as an example, the required amounts (litres) for 1kg of meat are: (beef:~15500, mutton:~10500, pork:~6000, chicken:~4300) However, the arguments would still work if we took chicken as the measurement...1kg of insect protein requires 5l of water, 3 orders of magnitude less than the most efficent classic meat production

cheese_goddess 5y ago

So, I have a question, I don't know if you can answer it, but in conversations like this one people always bring up beef. My question is: why? Most of the meat production globally is pork and chicken. In 2018, beef production was about 20% of all meat production while pork and chicken combined was about 70%: https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#meat-production-by-animal https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#meat-production-b... Most of the meat people eat (not just production) is also pork and chicken again with about 20% beef and 70% pork and chicken: https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#what-types-of-meat-do-people-eat https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#what-types-of-mea... So why the focus on beef? Can you explain? Btw, note that I don't agree (or disagree) with the article about insects being any kind of solution to anything so my question has nothing to do with the article.

usrbinbash 5y ago
> So why the focus on beef? Can you explain? To make a stronger argument. Beef production is by far the most inefficient method of converting resources (feed, water, land, energy) into meat, so its the one commonly used when argueing about resource requirements. One could say it's a rethorical tactic. Taking water as an example, the required amounts (litres) for 1kg of meat are: (beef:~15500, mutton:~10500, pork:~6000, chicken:~4300) However, the arguments would still work if we took chicken as the measurement...1kg of insect protein requires 5l of water, 3 orders of magnitude less than the most efficent classic meat production